http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/995
health value of vitamins: Life Extension Foundation April 2003:
Murray 5.8.3 rmforall

http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/april2003_nyt_response.html

New York Times Attacks Dietary Supplements
Life Extension Foundation Responds

Controversies continue to arise as to whether healthy people should take
dietary supplements. The latest example is a New York Times article
(April 29, 2003) that attacks vitamin supplements as being useless and
potentially dangerous.

A basis for this article was negative comments from an organization
whose prior press releases indicate that they serve as a public
relations front for big industry. Some of positions this organization
has taken over the past few years include:

1) Beef Benefits American Diet
2) McDonald's® Food Not Harmful
3) Acrylamide (found in French fries) Does Not Boost Cancer Risk
4) Ground Beef Should Be Irradiated
5) Children Not More Vulnerable To Environmental Chemicals
6) Nothing Wrong With DDT
7) Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer Cannot be Modified
8) Dry Cleaning Chemical (perchloroethylene) Poses No Human Threat
9) Diesel Exhaust Emissions Pose No Risk To School Children
10) Eggs Are A Valuable Component of American Diet

It seems that whenever health risks are uncovered that hurt corporate
profits; this organization jumps to the rescue with what would appear to
be an unbiased scientific rebuttal. For instance, when
estrogen/progestin drugs were found to be so dangerous that clinical
studies were halted (to protect the lives of the participants), this
organization issued a press release that helped deflect criticism
against these hormone drugs.

Based partially on proclamations from this organization, the New York
Times came to the conclusion that "multivitamins have not been shown to
prevent any disease and that it is easy to reach high enough doses of
certain vitamins and minerals to actually increase the risk of disease".

The Life Extension Foundation intends to write a detailed expose about
this blatantly unscientific New York Times article. The remainder of
this response represents Life Extension's initial response to this
unfounded attack on dietary supplements.

Some Scientific Facts

The consistency of evidence in the scientific literature shows that
dietary supplements help prevent disease. This is not just the position
of The Life Extension Foundation, but also of the world's two leading
medical journals.

On June 19, 2002 for instance, the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) reversed its long-standing anti-vitamin policy by
advising all adults to take at least one multivitamin pill each day.
According to the Harvard researchers who wrote the new JAMA guidelines,
it appears that people who get enough vitamins may be able to reduce
their risk of common illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and
osteoporosis. The Harvard researchers concluded that sub-optimal levels
of folic acid, vitamins B6 and B12 are a risk factor for heart disease
and colon and breast cancers; that low levels of vitamin D contribute to
osteoporosis and fractures; and inadequate vitamins A, E, and C may
increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

This was not the first time a prominent medical journal endorsed the use
of vitamin supplements. The April 9, 1998 issue of the New England
Journal of Medicine featured an article titled "Eat Right and Take a
Multivitamin" that was based on a series of positive studies showing
disease prevention benefits of dietary supplements.

One of the most prestigious journals in the world is The Lancet. In a
study published in a 2001 issue of The Lancet, researchers at Cambridge
University in England looked at serum vitamin C and how long people
lived. People who had the lowest levels of vitamin C were twice as
likely to die compared to those with the highest serum vitamin C levels.
This study was based on the findings from over 19,000 people. (Lancet
(2001; 357:657-63))

The question for those who want to postpone death is do you want your
blood to contain the lowest or highest levels of vitamin C. Since being
in the lowest level doubles your risk of dropping dead, you should
consume fruits, vegetables and supplements that are high in vitamin C.

A fascinating study published in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition in August 1996 showed that over a nine-year period, people who
consumed higher dose vitamin C and E supplements reduced their mortality
risk by an astounding 42%. Based on the results of this 11,178 person
study, if you take vitamin C and E supplements, your chances of dying
over the next nine years is reduced by 42%.

Are you concerned about cancer? You should be. Cancer kills 1,500
American every single day. The older we grow, the more DNA mutations
accumulate. Mutated DNA causes cells to lose their cell cycle regulatory
control and cancer is often the result.

Data from the famous Nurses' Health Study conducted at the Harvard
Medical School showed that long-term supplementation with folic acid
reduces the risk of colon cancer by an astounding 75% in women. The fact
that there are 90,000 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study
makes this finding especially significant. (Annals of Internal Medicine
(1998; 129:517-524)). The authors of this study explained that folic
acid obtained from supplements had a stronger protective effect against
colon cancer than folic acid consumed in the diet.

This study helps to confirm the work of Dr. Bruce Ames, the famous
molecular biologist who has authored numerous articles showing that
folic acid is extremely effective in preventing the initial DNA
mutations that can lead to cancer later in life. This Harvard report,
showing a 75% reduction in colon cancer incidence, demonstrated that the
degree of protection against cancer is correlated with how long a
DNA-protecting substance (such as folic acid) is consumed. It was the
women who took more than 400 mcg of folic acid a day for 15 years who
experienced the 75% reduction in colon cancer, whereas short-term
supplementation with folic acid produced only marginal protection.

An article published in the December 25, 1996 issue of the Journal of
the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed that 200 mcg of
supplemental selenium a day reduced overall cancer mortality by 50% in
humans compared to a placebo group not receiving supplemental selenium.
This 9-year study, published by the American Medical Association,
demonstrated that a low-cost mineral supplement could cut the risk of
dying from cancer in half.

Many people still question whether they should supplement with folic
acid and selenium. Based on the evidence showing that these supplements
may dramatically reduce the risk of contracting cancer, it would appear
that every American should take these supplements. They cost only
pennies a day and have been shown to protect against the most feared
diseases afflicting modern man.

One of the first human studies that substantiated the benefits of
vitamin supplements occurred in 1992 when a study emanating from UCLA
reported that men who took vitamin C lived 6 years longer than those who
consumed the FDA's recommended daily allowance of 60 mg a day. The
study, which evaluated more than 11,0000 participants over a 10-year
time period, showed that vitamin C intake extended average life span and
reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease by 42%. This study was
published in the journal Epidemiology (1992; 3:3, pp. 194-202).

One pathological problem humans acquire as they age is that their body
is unable to detoxify excess homocysteine. As homocysteine accumulates
in the blood, the risk for heart attack and stroke sharply increases. In
fact, the Americans Stroke Association reported that based on an
analysis of 15 different studies, mild to moderate increases in
homocysteine increased the risk of having a stroke by an astounding 86%.
The April 9, 1998 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine carried
an editorial that endorsed the use of folic acid to reduce the incidence
of heart attack and stroke, but the FDA still refuses to accept that
folic acid has any benefit other than preventing a certain type of birth
defect.

Are you convinced that vitamin supplements can delay your date of death?
If not, consider a study published in the British Medical Journal (Vol.
314, Issue 708, 1997) that evaluated 1605 randomly selected men in
Finland aged 42-60 years between 1984 and 1989. None of these men had
evidence of pre-existing heart disease. After adjusting for other
confounding factors, men who were deficient in vitamin C had 3.5 times
more heart attacks than men who were not deficient in vitamin C . The
scientist's conclusion was, "vitamin C deficiency, as assessed by low
plasma ascorbate concentration, is a risk factor for coronary heart
disease."

Does vitamin C cause kidney stones? That's what some doctors still say,
but a report from Harvard Medical School showed no increased risk of
kidney stones when evaluating 85,557 women over a 14-year study period.
This report, published in the April 1999 issue of the Journal of the
American Society of Nephrology, showed that women who consumed 1500 mg a
day or more of vitamin C were no more likely to develop kidney stones
than women who consumed less than 250 mg of vitamin C a day. The study
did reveal that women who consumed 40 mg or more of vitamin B6 were 34%
less likely to contract kidney stones compared to women taking fewer
than 3 mg a day of B6. So now that kidney stone risk has been ruled out,
let's look at some of the human studies showing positive benefits to
vitamin C supplementation.

In the March 9, 1999 issue of the American Heart Association's journal
Circulation, elevated homocysteine levels were shown to cause rapid
onset of endothelial (arterial lining) dysfunction. This type of
dysfunction reduces blood flow and can facilitate a lethal arterial
spasm. Vitamin C inhibited arterial dysfunction by interfering with
oxidative stress mechanisms. The doctors conducting the study stated
that acute impairment of vascular endothelial function could be
prevented by pretreatment with vitamin C.

A double-blind study published in the Journal of the American College of
Cardiology (1998; Vol. 31, Issue 6, pp.1323-1329) compared the effects
of nitrate drugs in people receiving vitamin C to a placebo group not
receiving vitamin C. The doctors administered nitrate drugs to healthy
people and patients with coronary artery disease and then measured
vasodilation response and cellular levels of cGMP, an energy substrate
that is depleted by nitrate drugs. At day zero, all participants were
measured to establish a baseline. After 3 days of vitamin C
administration (2 grams/three times daily), there was no change in
either group. After 6 days of vitamin C therapy an impressive 42%
improvement in vasodilation response was observed and a 60%
improvement in cellular cGMP levels was measured in coronary artery
disease patients receiving vitamin C compared to placebo. A similar
improvement occurred in the healthy subjects taking vitamin C compared
to the placebo group. The doctors concluded the study by stating, "These
results indicate that combination therapy with vitamin C is potentially
useful for preventing the development of nitrate tolerance."

Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (1998;
July 1) looked at the effects of nitrate drug therapy on human patients.
Tolerance development was monitored by changes in arterial pressure,
pulse pressure, heart rate, and activity of isolated patients. All
patients experienced the deleterious effects of nitrate tolerance.
However, when vitamin C was co-administered with the nitrate drugs, the
effects of nitrate tolerance were virtually eliminated. The most
significant improvement was a 310% improvement in the arterial
conductivity test. The nitrate drugs induced a dangerous upregulated
activity of platelets, but this too was reversed with vitamin C
supplementation. The doctors who conducted this study indicated that
vitamin C may be of benefit during long-term, non-intermittent
administration of nitrate drugs in humans.

Chronic heart failure is associated with reduced dilating capacity of
the endothelial lining of the arterial system. Scientists tested heart
failure patients by high-resolution ultrasound and Doppler to measure
radial artery diameter and blood flow. Vitamin C restored arterial
dilation response and blood flow velocity in patients with heart
failure. The scientists determined that the mechanism of action was that
vitamin C increased the availability of nitric oxide, an important
precursor to cGMP. This study was published in the February 1998 issue
of the journal Circulation.

Also in 1998, another aspect of vitamin C's effect on coronary artery
disease was discovered. A study published in the Journal of the American
College of Cardiology (1998; 41:5,980-6) showed that low plasma ascorbic
acid levels independently predict the presence of an unstable coronary
syndrome in heart disease patients. According to the doctors, the
study's results showed that the beneficial effects of vitamin C in
treating coronary artery disease may result, in part, by an influence on
arterial wall lesion activity rather than a reduction in the overall
extent of fixed disease.

The published research findings suggest that vitamin C may reduce
mortality in coronary artery disease patients, and possibly eliminate
the effects of nitrate tolerance in those taking nitrate drugs. While
not recognized in the medical establishment as a therapy for coronary
artery disease, there now exists an accumulated wealth of evidence that
vitamin C has beneficial effects in the treatment of heart-related
illnesses.

Mainstream medicine has historically ridiculed vitamin C
supplementation. In today's modern world, conventional medicine says
that only 200 mg a day of vitamin C is required, despite findings
showing that high doses of vitamin C are required to produce optimal
benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to stick with its position that no
more than 60 mg a day of vitamin C is needed.

The most frequently voiced criticism about supplemental vitamin intake
is that it produces "expensive urine," since water soluble vitamins,
such as vitamin C and the B vitamins are rapidly excreted into the
bladder within hours of ingestion. It appears desirable, however, to
have a bladder full of vitamins because certain vitamins inhibit
chemicals that cause bladder cancer. In the September 1996 issue of the
American Journal of Epidemiology, a study on the risk of bladder cancer
in vitamin takers showed the following:

1) High intake of vitamin A and beta carotene was associated with a 48%
reduction in bladder cancer incidence compared to the lowest levels of
vitamin A and beta carotene intake.
2) People taking higher amounts of vitamin C had a 50% reduced rate of
bladder cancer. Those who took 502 mg or more of vitamin C a day had a
60% reduction in bladder cancer compared to those who took no vitamin C.
3) For those who took multi-vitamin supplements for at least 10 years,
the reduction in bladder cancer was 61% compared to people who took no
vitamin supplements.
4) High intake of fried foods was associated with double the risk of
bladder cancer.

Studies show that antioxidant supplements reduce the risk of cataract.
One study in the American Journal of Epidemiology (Sept. 1996) evaluated
410 men for 3 years to ascertain the association between serum vitamin E
and the development of cortical lens opacities (cataracts). The men with
the lowest level of serum vitamin E had a 3.7 times greater risk of this
form of cataract compared to men with the highest serum level of vitamin
E.

While cataracts are usually treatable, a disease called wet macular
degeneration is not. Those who eat spinach and collard greens have low
rates of macular degeneration, and extracts from these vegetables
thought to protect against this blinding disease are now available in
dietary supplements that contain lutein and zeaxanthin.

A recitation of all the published studies that validate the disease
reducing effects of nutrient supplements would consume thousands of
pages. Based on the scientific studies presented in this abbreviated
response, the New York Times statement that "multivitamins have not been
shown to prevent any disease" is obviously false.

Can Vitamins Be Dangerous?

While ignoring thousands of studies that discuss the health benefits of
dietary supplements, the New York Times described every study that
indicated
that excess intake of certain vitamins may be harmful.

The New York Times article was critical of supplemental iron because it
contributes to iron overload disease and increased heart attack risk.
For many people, this is true. Life Extension first warned against iron
supplements in 1983 and the New York Times was correct in pointing out
this fact.

Vitamin A was attacked based on studies indicating that excess amounts
can increase bone fracture risk. Life Extension will address these
studies later, but a major flaw in at least one of them is that the
investigators did not ascertain the intake of bone protecting nutrients
such as vitamin D. Failing to account for all the nutrients needed to
maintain bone health renders these kinds of studies highly questionable.
There is considerable evidence that vitamin A reduces cancer risk. By
frightening people away from vitamin A supplements, the New York Times
did a disservice to its readers

The New York Times described one aberrant study were folic acid caused
increased narrowing of coronary arteries in patients who had "stents"
implanted. What was ignored were all the other studies showing that
folic acid protects coronary arteries by several well known mechanisms
including reducing toxic homocysteine blood levels and guarding against
endothelial dysfunction (arterial lining damage). The New York Times was
particularly egregious in overlooking the findings of a six-month study
showing that folic acid, vitamin B12 and vitamin B6 helped prevent
recurrence of blocked arteries in patients who have undergone coronary
angioplasty. This study was published in the August 28, 2002 issue of
the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Preliminary Conclusions

There are contradictions in the scientific literature as to what degree
of protection dietary supplements afford against disease. When any
scientific study is conducted, there are many factors than can confound
the findings. The result is a continuing controversy as to whether
healthy people should take dietary supplements.

The Life Extension Foundation expends enormous resources to methodically
review the published scientific literature in order to identify the
proper doses of dietary supplements that are of practical value to those
seeking to reduce their disease risk.

It is the position of The Life Extension Foundation that the New York
Times article titled "Vitamins: More May Be Too Many" is largely
baseless. Due to the huge circulation of the New York Times, the net
result will be the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people who
will perish from diseases that have been shown to be preventable by the
proper use of dietary supplements.
************************************************************************

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/984
aspartame review: methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid toxicity:
Murray 5.8.3 rmforall

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@...
1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA 505-986-9103

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/983
aspartame & formaldehyde toxicity: Murray 5.8.3 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
for 995 posts in a public searchable archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/ 650 member group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/989
EU votes 440 to 20 to approve sucralose, limit cyclamates & reevaluate
aspartame & stevia: Murray 4.12.3 rmforall

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame (12.4.2): 59 pages, 230 references

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/910
formaldehyde & formic acid from methanol in aspartame:
Murray: 12.9.2 rmforall

It is certain that high levels of aspartame use, above 2 liters daily
for months and years, must lead to chronic formaldehyde-formic acid
toxicity, since 11% of aspartame (1,120 mg in 2L diet soda, 5.6 12-oz
cans) is 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol), immediately released into the
body after drinking (unlike the large levels of methanol locked up in
molecules inside many fruits), then quickly transformed into
formaldehyde, which in turn becomes formic acid, both of which in
time become carbon dioxide and water-- however, about 30% of the
methanol remains in the body as cumulative durable toxic metabolites of
formaldehyde and formic acid-- 37 mg daily, a gram every month.
If 10% of the methanol is retained as formaldehyde, that would give 12
mg daily formaldehyde accumulation, about 60 times more than the 0.2 mg
from 10% retention of the 2 mg EPA daily limit for formaldehyde in
drinking water.

Bear in mind that the EPA limit for formaldehyde in
drinking water is 1 ppm,
or 2 mg daily for a typical daily consumption of 2 L of water.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835
RTM: ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999
5.30.2 rmforall

This long-term low-level chronic toxic exposure leads to typical
patterns of increasingly severe complex symptoms, starting with
headache, fatigue, joint pain, irritability, memory loss, and
leading to vision and eye problems and even seizures. In many cases
there is addiction. Probably there are immune system disorders, with a
hypersensitivity to these toxins and other chemicals.
***********************************************************************